July 2016 Was The Hottest Month Ever Recorded

originally posted by: TomLawless
I don't usually agree with your positions, but if you'd just admit that the current solutions provided by the very same people that caused the problem
are actually part of the problem, you might get more of the civil discourse I think you're trying to foster.

EVERYONE is part of the problem. We all contribute to it in some way. We can sit and complain about how the elite set the system up, but we are
sitting comfortably and resisting it. Unfortunately there will be resistance to this. People don't like to change their ways. Plus there are always
those people who get offended when you spell the truth out to them.

Instead of governments giving people the stick to change their behaviour, why not offer carrot for a change ? People will feel more obliged to change
their behaviour if they're rewarded rather than punished

He's actually wrong. Solar investment is now outpacing coal. Money goes where the future is and solar has become viable. It'll all be solar soon
enough and you'll have a nice battery storage system in your basement. I'm really certain of it. The car will be charged by it and public
transportation will become more of a standard. We've only just begun to develop our infrastructure. People think way too small. The earth isn't going
anywhere and we'll figure this thing out or we all die.

I would like to see the focus on visible air pollution in China and the use of alternative energy. (If it won't work in your area, fine; here, we've
been pursuing wind and solar aggressively, getting out of nuclear. Nice to be less energy dependent and less energy $ each month.) Nonetheless, I knew
something was wrong when the 100+ deg (way over 100) days started in June and wouldn't let up. July was a record of 100+ days. Now, another week like
that.

Because of the drought (this one wet year won't do much), there are ridge after ridge of dead trees in the Sierras. Harvested dead trees bring in only
about 40% of healthy trees, plus the mills can't handle all of them as is (let alone if they cut every one), so it affects the logging economy.

Right now I've got smoke overhead from fires on the coast and in the Sierras (and that doesn't include the destructive fire down south). What used to
be small fires of hundreds of acres are now thousands of acres. A spark starts a fire, which starts to eat from plate after plate of dry vegetation
and dead trees.

Just as Miami has local flooding concerns, concerns here are the massive wildfires. Cost of destroyed homes, businesses, towns. Health costs and
poorer health to people with breathing issues. Increasing costs to fight wildfires. Down south, major roadways were cut off; detours were horrible for
semis, traffic horrible for locals.

I'm at the end of my life. I've had a good run. Good luck to all you young people.

It could be these shifts in weather trends are going to be with us for awhile--cooler some places, hotter others, dryer, wetter..... we'll
have to adjust to live. I know there are young people doing some awesome work that will help the environment. They see some amazing possibilities. We
just don't always hear about them.

He's actually wrong. Solar investment is now outpacing coal. Money goes where the future is and solar has become viable. It'll all be solar soon
enough and you'll have a nice battery storage system in your basement. I'm really certain of it. The car will be charged by it and public
transportation will become more of a standard. We've only just begun to develop our infrastructure. People think way too small. The earth isn't going
anywhere and we'll figure this thing out or we all die.

One event from a major Volcano as History shows happens for certain leaves us dead in the water. I have solar panels and have considered this. We need
Nuclear power. I prefer the "Inherently Safe Reactors" such as Thorium. Imaginary Carbon problem solved and doom porn can seek the next matter. Trees
will solve the issue, not taxing oil and driving the cost of doing business up. People have to suffer the inflation of goods to these insufferable
idiots saying the Earth is doomed due to man made Climate change. No we who are so inclined to do so, will be doomed for being ignorant lemmings who
follow blindly.

Instead of governments giving people the stick to change their behaviour, why not offer carrot for a change ? People will feel more obliged to change
their behaviour if they're rewarded rather than punished

Of course they exist - in some countries that have taken efforts to combat climate change.

Meanwhile, I live in the U.S.

It looks like that particular tax doesn't come into effect below a certain threshold for emissions. There are a lot of vehicles that qualify for the
low annual rates, too - I pay more than that annually for my tag.

However, it looks like that is changing next year. There will be a larger (essentially
doubled) first-year tax, then the exact same values across the board afterwards. Anything over 0 emissions has to pay £140/yr. Anything over
£40,000 has to pay an additional £312/yr for 5 years. Cheap 0 emissions vehicles are the only ones that escape this change.

It won't be much of a carbon tax come next year. Or ever, really - they have treated motorcycles differently the whole time it's been in effect.
Though... the change next year will benefit motorcycles.

Years and years of bitching about the carbon tax, and I have yet to see it around anywhere.

And now you say

Of course they exist - in some countries that have taken efforts to combat climate change.

I think I should point something out to you concerning this extant/non-extant tax: emissions analysis can detect nitrates, sulfide, sulfates, and
roughly carbon monoxide levels, but they do not detect carbon dioxide levels. The only quasi-accurate method of detecting carbon dioxide is spectral
analysis. The carbon dioxide emissions are calculated based on fuel consumption alone. Carbon burned in an excess of oxygen always, always, always
forms carbon dioxide.

That's what most don't seem to get: oil, coal, wood, natural gas, and almost anything else burnable that we have in good supply is made primarily of
carbon. When burned in air, it will produce carbon dioxide. That covers easily 90% of the total energy sources we have available. The only other
options are hydro (clean, but we're running out of places to dam), nuclear (clean, but has safety and waste product issues), wind (we're starting to
run low on good wind farm locations too, and they're expensive), and solar (multiple energy density/conversion issues and the most expensive of all).
We are literally talking about a tax on living. No more worries about better efficiency, because better efficiency means more efficient carbon dioxide
production.

And yes, the carbon tax does exist. Other countries have it and are going broke. Our country will probably get it eventually and we'll join them in
the poverty line. And we'll still hear how we're breathing too much and thereby contributing to Global Warming.

Good Lord! 80deg! I was a visitor in Alaska 20 years ago. They were having a "heat wave" one day, when the high temp was going to be 70deg. You could
tell the tourists from the locals. We all had our jackets, jeans, and boots with socks on, while the locals walked around town in sleeveless t-shirts,
shorts, and flipflops.... which I assumed they had hidden away in some closet after a trip to Hawaii.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
One of us is confused. A page back you said

I think I should point something out to you concerning this extant/non-extant tax: emissions analysis can detect nitrates, sulfide, sulfates, and
roughly carbon monoxide levels, but they do not detect carbon dioxide levels. The only quasi-accurate method of detecting carbon dioxide is spectral
analysis. The carbon dioxide emissions are calculated based on fuel consumption alone. Carbon burned in an excess of oxygen always, always, always
forms carbon dioxide.

That's what most don't seem to get: oil, coal, wood, natural gas, and almost anything else burnable that we have in good supply is made primarily of
carbon. When burned in air, it will produce carbon dioxide. That covers easily 90% of the total energy sources we have available. The only other
options are hydro (clean, but we're running out of places to dam), nuclear (clean, but has safety and waste product issues), wind (we're starting to
run low on good wind farm locations too, and they're expensive), and solar (multiple energy density/conversion issues and the most expensive of all).
We are literally talking about a tax on living. No more worries about better efficiency, because better efficiency means more efficient carbon dioxide
production.

And yes, the carbon tax does exist. Other countries have it and are going broke. Our country will probably get it eventually and we'll join them in
the poverty line. And we'll still hear how we're breathing too much and thereby contributing to Global Warming.

And somebody will suggest we make breathing illegal. Just watch.

I'm not sure what your confusion is... ATS tends to be pretty U.S.-centric. This is the first I've heard of something vaguely carbon tax-inspired
since Australia repealed theirs. It has a lot of shortcomings, as I outlined in my response, and will drift quite a bit further from being like a
carbon tax with next year's changes.

Yeah, that's partly why oxygen levels are decreasing - that and the fact that photosynthesis doesn't turn CO2 into O2:

Sweet, can you do us the favor of listing these carbon taxes, as you claim they exist? We've got one quasi-example with this U.K vehicle tax. Any
others?

e: oh and remember that I think it's a dumb idea, so I don't really get where you're coming from.

It's an observation that you seemingly don't like. That's all. Does nothing to detract from your overall point, or shouldn't anyway.

My opinion on your observation is also irrelevant, because your point is irrelevant. If I start a thread talking about global climate, why do you
think your observation on local weather patterns would be relevant to the thread?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.